Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Citation
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Parent Document
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2013-07-25
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
Full Text
1,678 charsWe think this is one such case. Whether paragraph 23 contravenes section 304.4 is a pure question of law that has been fully briefed by the parties. Furthermore, paragraph 23 is not only plainly illegal, it also contravenes clear public policy meant to promote tenants’ access to the courts. Cf. Fairman, 934 A.2d at 448 (exercising discretion to review unpreserved challenge to regulations that court determined “violate[d] a clear and dominant public policy”). An obvious objective of the prohibition on fee-shifting provisions is to ensure that tenants can come to court to vindicate their rights without the fear of incurring the obligation to pay vast sums of attorneys’ fees for the landlords’ counsel.7 Mr. Pajic’s case demonstrates the danger. The trial court determined that Mr. Pajic owed Foote Properties just over $8,000 in back rent but ordered him to pay more than five times that amount in attorneys’ fees. In light of the objective to ensure tenants’ unfettered access to court, it would make little sense for us to require tenants like Mr. Pajic to know and assert their rights in court to ensure that this access is maintained. We further note that Mr. Pajic, who proceeded pro se below, is representative of the vast majority of tenants in landlord-tenant court who cannot afford to retain counsel.8 For this vulnerable population, a fee-shifting provision is especially fearsome. Because we are unwilling to enforce a manifestly illegal contract provision that would have a grave chilling effect on the ability of tenants to vindicate their rights in court, we choose to exercise our discretion to review and reverse the erroneous award of fees in this case.